Size Matters: How Vehicle Body Type Affects Consumer Preferences for Electric Vehicles Body Type and EV Preferences

Transcription

1 Size Matters: How Vehicle Body Type Affects Consumer Preferences for Electric Vehicles Christopher Higgins Moataz Mohamed Mark Ferguson March 16, 2011

2 Introduction How to encourage EV use? Who to target, how, and where?

3 Economic Studies Study Country Time Estimation Respondents Alternatives Period Method Segmentation Approach Horne et al. (2005) Canada NGV; HEV; FCV MNL Global model Potoglou and Kanaroglou (2007) Canada AFV; HEV NL Interaction segmentation Mau et al. (2008) Canada ,935 HEV; FCV MNL By HEV and FCV market share Hidrue et al. (2011) USA ,029 BEV LCM 2 latent choicemaking profiles Mabit and Fosgerau (2011) Denmark ,146 AFVs (BEV+HEV) MXL Random taste variation Musti and Kockelman (2011) USA HEV; PHEV MNL Interaction segmentation Qian and Soopramanien (2011) China BEV; HEV NL Owner and non-owner households Achtnicht et al. (2012) Germany AFVs (BEV+HEV) MNL Global model Daziano (2012) Canada NGV; HEV; FCV HCM 2 latent attitudinal constructs Hess et al. (2011) USA AFVs NL Global model Kitamura et al. (2012) Netherlands BEV MXL Random taste variation Shin et al. (2012) South Korea BEV; HEV MDCEV Random taste variation Ziegler (2012) Germany AFVs (BEV+HEV) PRO Global model Chorus et al. (2013) Netherlands AFVs (BEV+PHEV) RRM Company-car drivers Daziano and Achtnicht (2014) Germany AFVs (BEV+HEV) PRO Light-duty vehicle buyers Daziano and Bolduc (2013) Canada NGV; HEV; FVC HCM 1 latent attitudinal construct Hackbarth and Madlener (2013) Germany AFVs (BEV+HEV) MXL Random taste variation Jensen et al. (2013) Denmark BEV HCM 1 latent attitudinal construct Rasouli and Timmermans (2013) Netherlands BEV MXL Random taste variation Bockarjova et al. (2014) Netherlands ,977 BEV; HEV LCM 3 latent choicemaking profiles Glerum et al. (2014) Switzerland BEV HCM 4 latent attitudinal constructs Hoen and Koetse (2014) Netherlands ,903 AFVs (HEV+ PHEV+BEV) MXL Random taste variation Kim et al. (2014) Netherlands BEV HCM 5 latent attitudinal constructs Tanaka et al. (2014) USA/Japan ,202 BEV; PHEV MXL Country, random taste variation Axsen et al. (2015) Canada ,754 HEV; PHEV; BEV LCM 5 latent choicemaking profiles Helveston et al. (2015) USA/China BEV; PHEV; HEV MXL Country, random taste variation Valeri and Danielis (2015) Italy AFVs MXL Random taste variation Present study Canada ,392 HEV; PHEV; BEV PRO Vehicle body type preference

4 Vehicle Body Type Hypothesize that: There are significant differences in the profile of those interested in different types of vehicle That this leads to differences in preferences towards EVs

5 Survey Design

6

7 Survey Design

8

9 Additional Variables Urban-rural index Household size Household income Age of household head Young dependency ratio Education ratio Non-labour force ratio Vehicle ownership ratio Annual HHVKT Time to next vehicle purchase, replacement? French speaking, female Vehicle attributes: luxury styling, passenger space, cargo room, tailpipe emissions

10 Descriptive Statistics

11 MANOVA

12

13

14

15 Marginal Effects Household Characteristics

16 Marginal Effects Choice Scenarios

17 Marginal Effects Choice Scenarios 1. No Incentives 2. Ontario Incentives 3. Ontario Incentives, altered characteristics Double vehicle range to 270km +37% zero tailpipe to 4 +3% reduced tailpipe 3.4 to 3.5

18 Marginal Effects Choice Scenarios

19 Marginal Effects Choice Scenarios 1. No Incentives 2. Ontario Incentives 3. Ontario Incentives, altered respondent characteristics +37% zero tailpipe +3% reduced tailpipe

20

21

22 Conclusions Work confirms profile of those interested in different vehicles varies significantly These profiles affect preferences for EEs Consistent findings: BEVs and PHEVs appealing to younger, more educated BEVs preferred when hhld is looking to add a vehicle Fuel economy, emissions very strong

23 Conclusions Consistently Insignificant: HHVKT Suggests age anxiety more appropriate? Submarkets Economy and intermediate show low ASCs But also SUV and Minivan interesting potential markets EVs hardest sell for full-size sedan and pickup markets

24 Conclusions Luxury Market most unique Highest base willingness to select EVs (ASCs) Value emissions elimination Lowest sensitivity to purchase price, but by far highest to incentives (3x higher) Suggests value of incentives goes beyond monetary Validate approach of Tesla? Pickup least inclined to adopt EVs Highest disutility for EVs in ASCs, low value for incentives, no relationship with education, focus on emissions reduction rather than elimination

25 Size Matters: How Vehicle Body Type Affects Consumer Preferences for Electric Vehicles Christopher Higgins Moataz Mohamed Mark Ferguson March 16, 2011